IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Is there room for a compromise? what about no MTI?

"Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> Mon, 23 December 2013 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF2F1AE206 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:18:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yobi2vs_frNM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:18:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.55.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C767F1AE1F7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:18:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 26824 invoked by uid 0); 23 Dec 2013 17:18:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by oproxy7.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 23 Dec 2013 17:18:16 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From; bh=0UJzuwfFe6rkcAk5IlKZF89xOci68LK9ezBrdbzl3g4=; b=Gypc3MVIFFWXdj9VPOfrqmq84kQ+TE60dcdo95dRfc5vsE7uG7LorhDkF/lTN7euX2iz+mh/a1sKBghzoV9RkwR2lTm8j88irpleIgUo3l0gvyTMoWg6qEiiVennHlze;
Received: from [173.79.179.104] (port=55068 helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1Vv98y-0004c7-6x; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:18:16 -0700
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
To: 'Bernard Aboba' <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, 'David Singer' <singer@apple.com>
References: <CABcZeBNx5wpKDgd6TgA9U3_nxEKXdCsXpo8Kp663yQ6e_iN9vQ@mail.gmail.com> <20131215075757.GB3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <52AE54F8.5070300@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBNqE25O+BNLboXDrJ1ypp26uRAw8ehwtyor9gJccpuzGw@mail.gmail.com> <52AE759C.7020209@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBMjTGs41t7y=xvaLdn4i63HxC2YQUkrd-itq=VkuKvpTA@mail.gmail.com> <52AE9129.8090702@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBPOxqa2YQxOrTp9sVF-tQrpg-Kn=CbazBXOx_9dajhUZA@mail.gmail.com> <52AE9E0C.9060707@bbs.darktech.org> <20131216170820.GD82971@verdi> <20131220113631.GA70585@verdi> <52B47196.6060400@bbs.darktech.org> <D5B39658-5766-4C5B-9090-8E8EDC4BCFA6@apple.com> <BLU403-EAS179850B162A879E8A7BC47793C70@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU403-EAS179850B162A879E8A7BC47793C70@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 12:18:13 -0500
Message-ID: <00c401cf0002$f7ca0420$e75e0c60$@shockey.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQHciStatJhhclq8rgTki/ctSOP0SwLfuhazAPcdJN0CRK4T5wHMaIwzAcnvoZwBitF4DQG0vIGMAeuCtUkBiRLphgM+Zp86AkqSzbICEVWFgQLJuWpsmXChoRA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 173.79.179.104 authed with richard@shockey.us}
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Is there room for a compromise? what about no MTI?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:18:42 -0000

 [BA] How did SIP somehow survive without an IETF mandatory to implement audio codec? And if they had chosen something other than G.711, might that not have complicated RTCWEB discussions on the subject?

> * and finally: Santa is not allowed to use video (FAA ruling, it 
> seems, sad), and videophones in cars may one day be frowned on

[BA] More likely Santa ran afoul of FCC restrictions, unless there was an airworthiness issue :)

[RS> ] Actually the FCC recently reviewed this problem (I'm not sure if Santa offered public ex parte comments) and at least for now these restrictions will be lifted.  Santa will have to watch for FAA regulations on this , but Santa has a long record of understanding that agencies regulatory process.  

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-initiates-review-rules-wireless-services-onboard-aircraft




 _______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email